Bernard McFadden v. David Dunlap, No. 16-7540 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7540 BERNARD MCFADDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:15-cv-04674-JMC) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Catoe Bigelow, Stephen H. Lunsford, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard McFadden, a South Carolina state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. unless a circuit appealability. justice or denying relief on his 28 The orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McFadden’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
